77 


$B ΒΕ! &43ec 


Library of 
Henjamin Ide Cheeler 


| TATEX LIBRIS | | 


eons — 


᾿ 
ee es 
De eae Pa, ey 
eae tes 


a 
eye 


Ba 


᾽ 
et 
i J 


" 


a Nas 
δ τᾷ 


4 


wee 


HERONDAE A 


«1 A ee EEO OY 


ΣΝ cal 


BY 


JOHN HENRY WRIGHT 


RN ey 


REPRINTED FROM THE 


HARVARD STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 
Vol. IV., 1893. 


BOSTON 
GINN & COMPANY 


1893 


HERONDAEA. 


By JOHN HENRY WRIGHT. 


Ι. 
PUNCTUATION IN THE PAPYRUS. 


I. Zhe Spaces. —It is an important peculiarity of the papyrus 
manuscript of the Mimiambi of Herondas recently discovered (Papy- 
_rus No. CXXXV., British Museum), that, while as a rule the letters 
of the several verses are written continuously, without break or pause 
between the different words, now and then— in about twelve per 
cent of the verses—slight breaks or blank spaces do occur, never 
amounting however to more than the space ordinarily taken up by 
from one to two of the letters of average breadth. The significance 
of these breaks for the punctuation of the text was first emphasized 
by Blass, and has been recognized by several critics of the poet; 
but thus far only sporadically. In this article I propose to present 
all the examples, and to discuss the doubtful ones, not neglecting at 
the same time the examination of a few related topics, important in 
_ their bearing on the text-criticism of our author." 

It should be observed, in the first place, that these breaks are 
never intended to mark words as words, nor to suggest the proper 
combinations of letters into words in ambiguous instances: this work 
is performed, but without system, incompletely, and only very rarely 
directly, by the marks of the rough breathing,” the accents,’ the coro- 


1 For convenience ordinary type will be regularly used in the notes for the 
readings of the manuscript. It is to be regretted that in the text the font of 
inscriptional type so imperfectly represents the cursive majuscules of the papyrus. 

2 Only the rough breathing is written, and always in an angular form (*), 
except in the late ové’év, VI. 3. The cases are: II. 70 (Wayne); V. 20 (ὁτευ- 
vex); VI. 25 (ἡ BirGroc); VI. 68 (dyu[AA]n); VII. 46 (0). 

8 The accents, acute, circumflex, and grave, exhibit interesting peculiarities. 
The circumflex and acute are used with many proper names, but not with all; also 
to distinguish between words spelled alike but differently accented, and to indicate 
the correct grouping of letters into words, etc.: e¢., I. 29 (θέαι, not θεαί); 1. 85 

169 


170 John Henry Wright. 


nis,! and perhaps once or twice by the use of the dot or point.2. The 
last, however, has a more extended use —in perhaps a dozen exam- 
ples, collected below — as a sign of punctuation (στιγμή), having here 
a value not wholly unlike that of the spaces, but not so strong as that 
of the παράγραφος. 

Punctuation within the verses is indicated mainly by these spaces : 
indeed, these spaces have no value except as signs of strong inter- 
punctuation, and they always have this value, when not accidentally 
made. 


(ua, not wd); ibid, (οσσοῦ = ὃς σοῦ, not ὅσσου); IV. 42 (airy =avry, not 
airy); Il. 1 (ἐστέ = ἐστέ, not ἔστε). At V. 41 (064) perhaps the accent may 
indicate ὅδη. At II. 9 (ήμεασν) the accent seems to suggest the synalcepha of the 
final syllable (Crusius): and in V. 49 the acute on the ultima (ακηκουκάς) may 
be intended to indicate a rising tone of voice, necessary in a question (Diels). 

The grave accent regularly appears to be used to provide against misapprehen- 
sions. The examples are I. 60 (rarakt...: to show that this is not τατᾶ; it 
also shows that we have a longer word here than tara); I. 76 (Πυθεω δὲ); I. 70 
(ὡναγης: 6+ ἀναγής, not ὧν krd.); II. 1 (ἐστέ: ἐστέ, not gore); 11. 24 (ew: 
ἐμέ, not éud); III. 74 (πὲρνας : i.e. περνὰς, not mépvas); IV. 91 (πέλανον : 1.6. 
πελανόν); VII. 46 (di: perhaps taken for article—wrongly; hardly “aporiae 
indicium,” Crusius). 

1 The coronis (’), usually written at the top of the line (at I. 15 and II. 83, at 
the bottom), always appears to indicate elision at the end of words. It seems to 
have been put in by the first hand, except at VI. 3 (ovd’év). The other cases are: 
I. 15, wut,ocov = μυῖα ὅσον; 11. 24, ew ov = ἔμ᾽ οὐ = ἐμὲ οὐ; III. 49, καληθιν᾽ = 
κἀληθίνα; IV. 5, Kwvrep = κῶνπερ = kal ὥνπερ; IV. 16, adexrop cnrpa = ἀλεκ- 
ropa ἴητρα; IV. 41, κυδιλλ᾽ιουσα = Κυδίλλα ἰοῦσα. The only doubtful case is IT. 
83, καυτοστασ,αυτου: this must be καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ σὰ αὑτοῦ, hardly τὰ σεαυτοῦ, cer- 
tainly not, in the light of all our examples, rds αὑτοῦ (Doric short a). The cases 
show that the mark is not necessarily used, as in the Codex Alexandrinus, to sepa- 
rate words as words, nor like the διαστολή (ὑποδιαστολή) : ὅταν διαστεῖλαι καὶ 
διαχωρίσαι ὀφείλωμέν τινα λέξιν (e.9., ἔστιν, ἄξιος, not ἔστι Ndéws: Bekker, 
Anecd, Graeca, Il. p. 675); some of the examples, however, might be explained 
as instances of the diastole: ¢.g., II. 24 (éu’ov, not μου), III. 49 (καληθιν᾽, not 
καλῆθ᾽ ἵνα), etc. Cf. Gardthausen, Griech. Paléiographie, pp. 273 f. 

2In Proem. 11 (Cr.) τακυλλεαιδιν, the point appears to be intended only to 
mark off the words τὰ κυλλὰ and ἀείδειν : it can have no force for punctuation 
here; cf. 1V. 50 (ecoer-nuepa), but see p. 182, note 1. (In I. 3 [τις] the dot is 
merely a part of the sigma: likewise at II. 6 [κλ'αυσαι], the mark above the ἃ is 
part of an unfinished a, begun too near the ἃ; cf. 1. 51; at VII. 48 [ὅκως], the 
mark on o is part of a ¢ in the preceding line.) For some remarks on the use of 
the signs (~ , “) see below, pp. 177, 178 notes. 


fTerondaea. 171 


An examination of the photographic facsimile of the manuscript 
discovers about one hundred and ten cases of such intentional spac- 
ings. Of these not more than from two to six are in any way ambig- 
uous, and a fair consideration, it seems to me, would deny ambiguity 
to all. The remainder, over one hundred and four, are nothing but 
indications of punctuation, for which we have in our modern editions 
our various signs. A classification of these examples according to 
the punctuation adopted in the latest text-edition of Herondas (47d- 
liotheca Teubneriana: ed. Otto Crusius, 1892), which errs by no 
means on the side of excessive. punctuation, yields the following 
groupings : — 

a.— The breaks accompany a change of speaker? in the dialogue at 
I. 7* (ἐστιν; Τυλλίς), 20, 82; 11. 48; III. 58, 78*, 81, 82, 87, 93; 
V. 31,553; VI. 15, 17, 19*, 22*, 23*, 25; and are thus represented 
by our period, colon, dash, or question-mark (the last indicated by 
the:*). 

6.— They stand at the end of a question in the examples starred 
above, and in the following additional cases where no change of 
speaker occurs after them: I. 9, 48 [?]; III. 43, 60; IV. 57 (per- 
haps an exclamation, ofa épya;) ; V. το, 18, 41, 75; VI. 10, 44, 45, 
75, 76; VIII. 4, 5. In these cases they are represented by a 
guestion-mark. 

c.— Many have the value indicated by Crusius by a period: most 
of the unstarred cases under a, and the following additional examples : 

ΒΟ 70 31168; IIT. 59; IV. 27. V. 20, 56, 66, 67, 74; VIL. 4, 117. 
~  @.— They have the value of a colon at I. 15, 66, 82; III. 11, 26; 
ἘΝ ἐδ, 92,933. V..6;-VI.-5, 31, 613 VIL. 65, 1285 ὙΠ 12; 
and of something like it at IV. 58. 


1 The apparently exceptional cases are discussed below; see pp.173f. Occa- 
sionally, but extremely rarely, when the large bulk of the writing is considered, we 
find other slight breaks. In most of these instances the letters of a verse have 
been written more sprawlingly than usual, and thus give the appearance of spac- 
ing where no pause isintended. I have observed only these examples: yap, ἡμέων 
(I. 46); ποθ, ἔων (1. 60); μετελθεῖν - ἢν θύρην (11. 50); κεῖνον δὲ (IV. 30); 
οὗ τος (V. 43); τοῦ τον (V. 58); ἡμέων (VI. 82). (In the apparent Φιλαίν͵ ου, 
I. 5, the letter iota has disappeared, leaving only a slight trace.) Such is not the 
explanation of the pause in I. 55, discussed on pp. 186 ff. 

2 Change of speakers is usually indicated, but with many omissions, by the 
παράγραφος; see pp. 178 ff. 


172 Sohn Henry Wright. 


e.— Crusius represents them by a comma at I. 13 (dis), 67, 89; 
II. 22, 49, 77; III. 49, 81 (παῦσαι ἱκαναί) ; IV. 43, 46, 90; V. 9, 
25, 34, 42 (τοῦδε, καὶ σύ), 53, 69 (τατί᾽ ,ἀλλάν), 70; VI. 3 (αὐτήν, σύ), 
12, 18, 49, 77, [96, after τι] ; VII. 57 (ds), 58 (before κανναβίσκα), 
60 (after ἀκροσφύρια), 61 (after ἔφηβοι), 98, 110. 

j.—In the following verses, where the spacings are indicated by 
the sign of caret, Crusius inserts no mark of punctuation ; but no one 
can deny that at least a strong phrasing, if not punctuation, was dis- 
tinctly intended: II. 2 (οὐκ ἐστὲ | ἡμέων κριταὶ δήκουθεν͵, οὐδὲ τῆς 
δόξης) ; IIL. 10 (τὸν μισθὸν αἰτεῖ, κἢν τὰ Ναννάκου κλαύσω) ; IV. 83 
(εὐμενὴς εἴης | καλῶς ἐπ᾽ ἱροῖς ταῖσδε, κεΐ τινες τῶνδε [ἔασ᾽ ὀπυιηταί) ; 
IV. 42 (οὐ σοὶ λέγω αὕτη τῇ . . . χασκούσῃ :), and 55 (αὕτη σύ, 
μεῖνον) ; III. 25 (τριθὴμέρᾳ Μάρωνα γραμματίζοντος | τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῷ, 
τὸν Μάρωνα ἐποίησεν | οὗτος Σίμωνα) ; IV. 24 (οὐχ dpys κεῖνα | ἐν τῇ 
βάσει͵ τὰ γράμματα; i.e. ‘Don’t you see those [things] on the pedes- 
tal, the letters?’) ; perhaps also IV. 59 (τὸν παῖδα δή (τὸν) γυμνόν). 

At III. 80 there is a pause which taken in connexion with the cor- 
rections at this point is extremely significant. As first copied, uncor- 
rected, vv. 79, 80 read (in part): (79) ITICOIZWHN (80) ΦΕΡ OC- 
ACANHKAKHCOENHIBYPCAI. ‘The corrector, evidently the 
first hand, having previously designated 80 as corrupt (by an oblique 
line in the margin opposite PEP ; see ἢ. 181) sets himself to correct 
it. He puts a mark of erasure over the N of ZWHN (superior dot) ; 
writes in, in the upper part of the space after EP, the letters EIN ; 
and draws his reed through the two I’s (at COENHI mistakenly ; at 
BYPCAI apparently correctly ; probably these |’s were earlier can- 
celled by the copyist, as he wrote). These facts show that the original 
manuscript from which the papyrus was transcribed read something as 
follows, of course metrically an improbable reading : 


METROTIME (40 the master). εἴ τί σοι ζῴην, 
φέρ᾽, --- ὅσας ἂν ἡ κακὴ σθένῃ βύρσα: 


i.e. ‘If I am anything to you (cf. V. 70), come,— [give him] all the 
blows his vile hide may bear.’ The corrector, however, so radically 
modifies the text that it seems obvious, either (1) that the manuscript, 
at the time it was copied (for the hands in EIN and $€P are the 
same), was corrected by comparison with another manuscript contain- 
ing different readings, or (2) that our copy was made from dictation, 


ma 


Herondaea. 173 


the scribe not distinctly hearing the words. The second alternative 
cannot be adopted ; see p. 183, note 2. The first alternative is sup- 
ported by other inserted readings. Now the reading φέρειν could not 
have been in the original: otherwise the space after dep would not 
have been made. We infer accordingly that in the manuscript used 
for correction the text read: 


METROTIME (Ὁ her son). εἴ τί σοι ζωή, 
φέρειν ὅσας ἂν ἡ κακὴ σθένῃ βύρσα. 


‘While your life holds out, you’ll have to get all the blows your vile 
hide can stand (or that the cowhide is good for).’ 

There are now left six cases, which upon first examination appear 
to be exceptions to the law that spacing always indicates punctua- 
tion.’ These are I. 1 and 64; V. 68; VII. 110 and 118; and VIII. 
4. (1.) In the difficult and corrupt passage I. 64 we are not shut up 
to one reading ; the space after πρήξεις favors a reading like that first 
proposed by Crusius: ἃ πρήξεις, ἡδέ᾽ ἐστὶ κτλ., or Blass’s δοιὰ πρήξεις, 
ἡδονὴν κτλ., rather than Biicheler’s or Crusius’s in the text-edition, 
although it is not wholly impossible with the latter.? (2.) At VII. 118, 
the papyrus reads: YWPH (118) APHPENOTTAH BOYCOAAKTI- 
CACYMAC. Biicheler’s ψωρὴ | dpnpev ὁπλή, Bods ὃ λακτίσας ὑμᾶς ---- 
‘scabra congruit ungula, bos pressit vos calce’— gives excellent 
sense, besides preserving the punctuation, and therefore may be pre- 
ferred to Crusius’s ψωρῇ | dpypev ὅπλῃ βοῦς ὃ λακτίσας ὑμᾶς ----- Der 
Ochs der euch versohlt hat, fiihrt eine raudige Klaue.’ The cases 
~ VII. 110, V. 68, and VIII. 3 belong together. (3.) In VII. 110 (ἔχεις 
γὰρ, οὐχὶ γλᾶσσαν, ἡδονῆς δ᾽ 7Oudv), there is a strong rhetorical pause 
before οὐχί whereby οὐχὶ γλᾶσσαν becomes parenthetical. (4.) At V. 
68 (κατηρτήσθω οὕτω κατὰ μυὸς ὥσπερ,ἣ Adov τίμη), the interesting 
pause seems to be a rhetorical one, due to the verb that must be 
supplied, of which τίμη is subject. (5.) In VIII. 3 (ἢ προσμενεῖς ov, 
μέχρι σευ ἥλιος θάλψει | [τὸν κ]υσὸν éodvs), the space is not large and 
may be accidental, but a rhetorical pause is quite probable here also, 
especially if we read μέχρις ed. It is not unlikely that the passage is 


1 Among the exceptions I should not include I. 55 (ἄθικτος és Κυθηρίην, σφρη- 
vis); see below, pp. 187 ff. The text at VIII. 28 ([ἀἸναλέσθαι κη: Frag. 2. 7), and 
at Proem. 9 (devrepy,yv) is too fragmentary to be taken into consideration. 

2 Diels proposes πρήξεις, ἡδέως δὴ τερφθείσῃ. 


174 John Henry Wright. 


slightly corrupt, and that the pause may be not original. (6.) There 
remains I. 1 (ἀράσσει τὴν θύρην͵ τις" οὐκ ὄψει | εἰ κτλ.).2 If we are to 
adopt this punctuation as one originally intended in thought, we may 
suppose that the scribe, by whom the original was made of which our 
manuscript is a transcript, was misled by the form of ris: he took 
the pronoun with the od as an interrogative beginning the sentence, 
and therefore spaced it off from the preceding word (cf. IV. 21; 
VI. 18). Our scribe merely copies what he has before him. 

Of the six doubtful cases, then, one is probably due to a copyist’s 
mental confusion ; two cease to be exceptions upon the adoption of 
otherwise approved readings; and three, if not purely accidental, 
likewise cease to be exceptional if we admit the possibility of the 


1 The synizesis of ev + ἢ, across a pause in the sense, is not an objection: cf. 
III. 81 (παῦσαι, ixaval), and 1V. 50 (μαρτύρομαι, φημί  ἔσσετ᾽ ἡμέρη κείνη). But 
the place is otherwise open to criticism, and from several points of view appears 
to be corrupt. As it stands it would probably be better to take it as μέχρις ev 
ἥλιος θάλψει (for ev compare VII. 123, where read τὴν... βαίτην | θάλπουσαν 
ev de?’ vdov... kal ῥάπτειν --- and for the position of ev compare also Dem. Cor. 144, 
ev πρᾶγμα συντεθέν, or Plat. Rep. 1. 329 C, εὖ οὖν μοι καὶ τότε ἔδοξεν ἐκεῖνος εἰπεῖν) ; 
or, possibly, μέχρι σ᾽ εὖ θάλψει. But the synizesis ev + 7 is perhaps too harsh to 
be allowed even to Herondas. The papyrus has only one other instance, τό pev 
αἷμα (V. 7), but a similar synizesis in ἱκετεύω (III. 71) was avoided by the cor- 
rector by erasing the v. And at II. 43, where μέχρις od —a not dissimilar diph- 
thong, though elsewhere freely suffering synizesis—is used, hiatus is permitted 
(μέχρις οὗ εἴπῃ). Perhaps even τό μεὺ αἷμα, in V. 7, is an analogical form, and 
should be written τό peo αἷμα: compare τέο in VIII. 1 (red, II. 98) and σέω 
πρῆξις (= σέο ἡ πρῆξις, Cr.), VII. 96, if reference may be made to so problemat- 
ical a passage. If, now, we reject the present reading because of its extraordinary 
synizesis, the words will be seen to be an easy palaeographical corruption of 
ME XPICOYHAIOC (cf. μέχρις οὗ εἴπῃ, 11. 43, and ἄχρις ἥλιος δύῃ, 11. 88), or, 
since that combination is objectionable because it made hiatus at II. 43, and must 
not here, MEXPICOHAIOC (cf. [08 HA ]lou δύντος, II. 13). In the latter case 
the CO might have been taken for EQ (Cobet, Mov. Lect. pp. 178 f.), and this 
easily written into the more familiar ΟὟ. This process was, of course, helped by 
the ME XPICEY, a few lines below (μέχρι σευ, but perhaps μέχρις εὖ). In this 
line (VIII. 3) we can hardly make the letters = μέχρις εὖ, as an hyperionism for 
μέχρις οὗ, under the influence of the foregoing μέχρι τέο (v. 1). 

2 Can we take ἀράσσει impersonally, and read the verse: Opéioca, ἀράσσει τὴν 
θύρην. τίς; οὐκ ὄψει κτλ.ῦὉ (Cf. Kiihner, Ausf Gramm. II. p. 30.) It is per- 
haps better, however, to explain it as above, if after all the pause be not an 
accidental one, like those in οὗἉ, τος (V. 43), and τοῦ τον (V. 58) mentioned at 
p. 171, note 1, 


Flerondaea. 175 


use of the space to suggest merely a slight rhetorical pause, such as 
was regularly indicated by the στιγμὴ μέση in the writing of the 
Roman period," 

It may, therefore, be reaffirmed with emphasis, that in the Heron- 
das papyrus the blank spaces between certain words in the verses 
always have the value of strong interpunctuation, and must be care- 
fully heeded by all who would seek to construct the text or to inter- 
pret the poet. 

But the punctuation by spacing goes only a little way. If it had 
been applied consistently and completely, we should have had more 
nearly a thousand than a hundred cases to register. 

II. Στιγμαί. ---- Punctuation is also indicated in the papyrus by the 
use of the dot or point in the line. This method of punctuation has 
not the significance of the former for purposes of text-criticism, since 
it may be in large part the arbitrary work of later correctors or 
readers, whereas the spacing must have been made by the original 
scribe, and can have been only a reproduction of what he had before 
him. Punctuation according to spacings may go back to Herondas ; 
but that by points hardly. 

Some of the points or dots in the text may be mere blots, — for we 
find others like them in the middle of words, or hanging on the tips 
of thickly-written letters, — or even parts of letters detached from 
the body of their letters on fibres of papyrus slightly shredded off. 
Again, very frequently the intentional dot does duty in Herondas to 
indicate omission or erasure, and is then regularly placed above the 
letter or letters to be rejected: occasionally it is also placed, both 
above and below, and once in a while at the right side or on both 
sides” of the objectionable word or letters. In the latter position it 
may lead to a confusion with the use of the point for punctuation. 
Actual cancellation is effected by drawing a line obliquely, or some- 
times horizontally, across the undesired letters, syllables, or signs: it 
is sometimes combined with omission as indicated by a superior dot 


1QOn the use of the μέση see Blass, Griechische Palaeographie, in I. Miiller’s 
Handbuch, 13. pp. 311, 312, 323. 

2 For example at I. 50 (Παταικιου- Γυλλου.), where the marginal Τρυλ(λος) 
is to replace the word in the text. Possibly the point in 11. 98 (after Φοιβη) has 
a like value; but its mate is not visible at the beginning of the word, nor has any 
substitute or gloss been written on the margin. 


176 John Henry Wright. 


(see IV.67). It is not unlikely, though not certain, that this cancel- 
lation was done by the first hand, in the progress of his writing: see 
IV. 83, where in Θ ΜΤΙ the M is cancelled, and the correct TT placed 
just after, though it is possible that the scribe here wrote out ΘΟ MTTP 
at first. The dots indicating omission were added on the revision by 
the corrector, who was apparently the first hand (see on III. 80, 
above, pp. 172 ff., also p. 184). 

The points as distinctly used for punctuation! may be grouped as 
follows: cases where they are by Crusius represented by periods, by 
interrogation-points, by colons, and by commas. Where the στιγμή 
falls at the close of the verse it is designated in my list by an asterisk. 

a.— Periods: 1.3 (ECWAE: ; point at middle) ; 1.4 (ΑΟΟΟΝ ἢ) ; | 
I. ὃ (AOYAH-; middle); I. 82 (TTEIOI-; middle); II. 98 
(POIBH.; perhaps middle) ; VI. 5 (ME TPEW* with H- written 
above €; unless the point here merely indicates erasure of H on 
second thoughts [so Crusius, and cf. III. 62], it means that we are 
to read METPH.: with full pause, and not METPHW); VII. 76 
(ITPHZI": if this be ἃ στιγμή ; if a line, there are no similar uses in 
the papyrus) ; VII. 113 (OWMEN’). 

b6.— Question-marks: I. 3 (OYPHN.; interrupted question) ; I. 3 
(CY*); I. 4 (TTRPOCEAOIN.). 

c.—Colons: IV. 21 (ATAAMATWN’) ; VII. 114 (1TAZ-; mid- 
dle). 

d.—Commas: I. 8 (ΤΙ. ; middle) ; IV. 37 (BATAAHN.). 

A glance at this list shows at once the futility of attempting to 
identify these points with any ancient system of στιγμαί (τελεία, 
ὑποστιγμή [and péon]). They are inserted with little discrimination. 
Thus all three are used to indicate a strong pause; the “ τελεία ᾿ at 
I. 4 has very strong force ; less at IV. 21. The “ ὑποστιγμή ᾽" is weak 
at IV. 37, less weak at I. 3, and rather strong at VII. 113. Prob- 
ably the papyrus is not carefully enough written to justify us in very 
nice distinctions between the “ μέση ᾽ and either of the others, but a 
difference is certainly to be observed between the top and bottom of 
the line as places to receive the points. And we must also bear in 
mind that some of these cases may well be those of accidental 


1 The following cases appear to be accidental: in V. 21 the point under pu of 
vac; and the points on both sides of Xin VIII. 42 (ο΄ λ'η.), where the sense 
demands οὔλῃ. 


Flerondaea. 177 


blots. Probably some early owner of the papyrus began with the 
good intention of putting the points in (διαστίξαι τὸν Ἡρώνδαν), but 
soon gave up the task. It will be observed that eight out of the 
thirteen or fourteen στιγμαί are found in the first mime, and most of 
these near the beginning. 


II. 
THE παράγραφος AND ὀβελός. 


J. Ilapaypados.—A short hoxjzontal line, drawn distinctly, firmly, 
and usually with full reed, is frequently met with in the papyrus, and 
has various values.” Within the verses and between the lines, where 
it occurs rarely, it is placed close above certain letters, regularly 
vowels: in this position so miscellaneous seem to be its functions 
that we cannot speak more definitely of it than to say that it calls 
attention to something noteworthy in the letters or words marked.? 


1 On this name see p. 180, note 4. 

2 The sign (7) is used five times in Herondas, and, as — with perhaps one 
exception—it is always over short syllables, it may be identified with the sign 
invented by the Alexandrine metricians to indicate a short syllable (βραχεῖα, 
πρῶτος χρόνος). The sign cannot be taken as a rhythmical sign, since while 
ordinarily in the ἄρσις, at VII. 108 it stands on one of the resolved feet in the 
θέσις. The cases are I.50 (ὁ Mard«[t]yns); 1.56 (Mi’ons); IV. 30 (τὸν yéporrd ; 
πρὸς Mowpéwv); VII. 108 ([δύ]ναιτό μ᾽ ἐλᾶσαι); and the puzzling IV. 62, which 
has given rise to a spirited controversy (see Crusius, Phz/o/. 50 (1891), p. 446; 
Ludwich, Berl. Phil. Woch. S., 1892, pp. 642, 1349, and L. Miiller, 22d. p. 995). 
Here the original draft had TTY PACTON, or TTYPAC TON: over T a P is 
written and upon YT and A stand the marks”,”. Meister’s πύραστρον is now 
adopted by both Kenyon and Crusius. The first syllable of the word, contrary to 
usage, is here metrically long: hence it is marked; it also has the acute accent. 
The second sign perhaps refers to the original or natural quantity of the syllable 
in πύραγρον, which — on this theory —the scribe must have thought he had before 
him, in his original: otherwise the sign is unintelligible to me. For πύραγρον, 
cf. πυράγρη, Anth. Pal. VI. 117. 

8 The examples of this sign (7) in the papyrus are the following: over zo/a, 
III. 74 (to =els); III. 79 ( ΞΞ εἰ, followed by enclitic); V. 5 (προφασῖσ = 
προφάσει) ; V. 18 (φερῖσ Ξ-- φέρεις, (τ. : probably φέρ᾽ els); Proem. 11 (ertover= Ὁ); 
IV. 43 (uariv, a short vowel: perhaps a mark of cancellation?); VI. 25 (Βιτᾶτοσ, 
a short vowel); and perhaps in the obscurely written I. 82 (δεῖξοντε ὃ), unless 
here it be meant for the superior dot indicating erasure, the scribe mistakenly 
thinking of δέξο. The only other cases are: over a/pha, III. 79 (rara), and 


178 John Henry Wright. 


But the chief use of the horizontal line in the papyrus is to indi- 
cate a change of speaker in the dialogue, and in this function it may 
be identified with the very ancient sign known as the zapdypados. 
In cases of this sort it is always placed just under the beginning of a 
line, slightly projecting into the margin, and shows that within the line 


IV. 56 (κᾶἄνεῖθ), both at the beginning of the line; over T, IV. 62, πύραστρον 
(rvpaypov?) cited in the previous note. 

It will be noticed that, in all the cases where the ee is used with iota having 
the value of εἰ, there exists a second form, with which confusion might arise: 
thus at III. 74, εἷς and εἰς; III. 79, ef and εἰ; V. 5, προφάσεις, not πρόφασις. 
Since ἐρεῖς is at IV. 28 given by epic, it is probable that a different expression 
was meant in the φερῖσ of V. 18, 1.6. φέρ᾽ εἷς. The form at Proem. 11 (επΐουσι) 
is enigmatical. Crusius takes it for ἐπιοῦσι, but Diels and Biicheler render it by 
érdovot. Perhaps the mark. over the iota merely calls attention to the anomalous 
quantity of the vowel. 

Since the sign (7), as used in the papyrus, may with probability be identified 
with the Alexandrine sign for the short syllable, one is tempted to connect this 
sign with the Alexandrine (~) used to designate a long syllable (μακρά, χρόνος 
dionuos). But the data will not support such a conclusion. The sign has not 
metrical value, since it stands over long and short (IV. 43, VI. 25) syllables with- 
out distinction. Nor has it rhythmical value, since, while on syllables under the 
θέσις at [I. 82], III. 74, 79, IV. 62, V. 18, and Proem. 11, in an equal number 
of cases its syllables are in the ἄρσις (III. 79; IV. 43, 56; V.5; VI. 25). Its 
peculiar use in connexion with duplicate values of iota which could not be or 
had not been differentiated by the addition of an accent, its possible use with 
δεῖξον (I. 82) taken in an unusual sense, and its erratic application to other 
syllables lead one to believe that, as inserted by the scribe of the papyrus, it was 
nothing more than an intermarginal “obelus,” intended to call attention to 
dubious or peculiar forms and uses. Unlike the “obeli” discussed below, 
these cases were probably a tradition from the original manuscript (see pp. 180 ff.). 

Several apparent “ obeli” of this sort require attention. In I. 7 the mark 
after καλι is hardly a “ paragraphus” (Crusius), at least in the sense of a sign 
indicating punctuation; it is rather part of the upper bar of the following τ; 
the papyrus fibres (vertical) have shredded loose at this point, and sagged down, 
as a comparison of the writing above and below will demonstrate.—The mark 
over the first a of Mara- in I. 50 does seem to me an intended’; it is rather a 
thickened fibre of the papyrus. — At V. 17 (u@pa), the mark is probably an acute 
accent, the scribe taking the word as μώραν, not μῶραν. --- The peculiar line 
over the first ν in VII. 77 (τὸν riuov) is nothing more than a part of the follow- 
ing τ. —In II. 73 the line over the much blotted 7 (Ὁ) in Φιλι[7τ ]s must be the 
remnant of a letter suggested for the place, perhaps a sprawling tr.— In I. 54 the 
line over τ in τ[ὸ καλόν) appears to be the horizontal stroke of ἃ τ begun too 
high. 


LHlerondaea. 179 


above, or at the end of the line, there is a transition to a second 
speaker. In this place it never has any other meaning. Not taking 
into account the ornamental forms of the sign found under and 
adjoining the closing lines of each mime,’ there are sixty-three cases 
of the use of the zapdypados in Herondas to indicate change of 
speaker. These do not, however, comprise the total number of 
necessary changes of this sort; hardly more than from sixty to 
sixty-five per cent. 

The παράγραφος indicates a change of speaker at the end of the 
line in the following verses: I. 66; III. 70, 76, 83, 85, 86, 88; IV. 
18 [?], 38, 51, 53, 71, 783 V- 3, 7,9, 18, 19, 25, 28, 34, 36, 38, 39, 
62, 68, 79, 80; VI. 11, 21, 26, 36, 56, 73, 78, 79, 84, 88, 92; VIL. 
63, 76, 78, 82,90,92. It indicates a change of speaker in the middle 
of the verse, there being none at the end, in I. 7; III. 58, 81, 87; 
TV BSN ΤΟ; 20; 22, 23; 25,47, 97:3 Vil. 3. At IL. 48, 
it shows, like our marks of quotation, that the speaker has finished 
his own remarks, and is now about to introduce a citation from the 
laws of Chaerondas. 

Only at one place, out of the sixty-three cases, is the παράγραφος 
certainly wrongly applied: at V. 55 it comes a line too soon. (At 
I. 65 it also comes a line too soon, but it is there cancelled, and 
given correctly below under line 66.) In the distribution among the 
speakers proposed by Biicheler and Crusius, though not in that pro- 
posed by Rutherford, it would seem that also after I. 81 and IV. 34 
the παράγραφος had been wrongly used. But in view of the number 
of correct examples and of the nature of the blunders made, we ought 
to be slow to admit exceptions here. ‘The verse I. 82 may well be 
put into the mouth of Threissa,? and the words in IV. 35-38 could 
have been said by one of the maids. At all events it can be urged 
that such was the distribution of parts in the manuscript from which 
the papyrus was copied, though this may not have been the original 
intention of the poet. 


1 At the close of a book the ornamental finial sign was called the κορωνίς : 
Isidore, Orig. I. 21; cf. Blass, Griech. Palaecographie, p. 311. In this papyrus 
it often resembles the διπλῇ ἀπερίστικτος, with additional flourishes. 

2 This has been proposed, on other grounds, by O. Ribbeck, Rhein. Museum 


47 (1892), p. 629. 


180 John Henry Wright. 


There appears to be little doubt that the mark (~) above letters 
and the παράγραφος were inserted by the first hand.’ 


II. ‘OBeAds. — With the παράγραφος must not be confused other 
short lines — not marks of accent or of quantity — found both in the 
text and on the margin of the papyrus: they are usually drawn from 
right to left obliquely downward.? When placed in the body of the 
text, a line of this description sometimes here taking a horizontal 
position, and ordinarily roughly drawn — actually cancels an objec- 
tionable letter or group of letters; I think these marks were, as a 
rule, made by the scribe in the progress of his writing, whereas eras- 
ures suggested on the revision are designated by the superior dot. 
In one place this mark appears to cancel a faultily placed zapa- 
γραφος (I. 65). 

But the chief function of this obliquely drawn line is to call atten- 
tion to verses * requiring examination for one reason or another: and, 
since in this function —though hardly in its form — it resembles the 
ὀβελός of the Alexandrines, it may provisionally receive this name.‘ 
In these cases it is placed on the left margin directly opposite, or 
near, the first letter of the line in question. While it signalizes many 
verses it by no means calls attention to all corrupt readings or 
obscure passages. In many instances, if not in all, it appears to be 
the work of the first hand or of an immediate contemporary, since 
it not seldom calls attention to omission of letters, or to incorrect 
letters, where the correction is made by the first hand. But not all 
of the corrections that it points out as necessary are actually made, 
nor when made are they invariably in the first hand. The cases of 
the use of this obelus, which is extremely important for the text- 
criticism of our poet, may be grouped as follows: 

a.—It designates verses where fers have been omitted, or 


1The nature of the blunders made in inserting the παράγραφοι appears to 
prove that the signs were copied by the scribe after he had written a considerable 
part of the text, and were not due to his own conjecture. 

2 In IV. 51 the line has the opposite slant. 

8 In II. 36 the mark is placed opposite a word in the verse (οικιαν). This is 
the only clear case where it is found not in the margin, in this function. 

4 It is probably forcing language a little to name this sign an ὀβελός. The 
obelus of Homeric and Platonic text-criticism was used distinctively to indicate 
athetesis; combined with other signs, however, it had many other values. Thus 


Herondaea. 181 


wrongly given, in the first draft, but are supplied or corrected either 
by the first or by a later hand: II. 3 (ΝΥΝ becomes νηυν, with H 
written above by first hand) ; III. 45 (HME OA— nyaiba, Al above, 
late hand?) ; III. 46 (KAAIOYCAE KACT OY — A before € erased 
in line) ; III. 80 (PEP OCAC — φερεινοσας, εἰν written above, first 
hand ; see pp. 172 f.); IV. ro (IAEW-A above the A, first hand?) ; 
IV. 67 (av|ACIMOC-CIAAOG, first hand?; earlier in the line also 
erasures by cancellation and superior points) ; IV. 76 (after EPI A, 
TA inserted, late hand [Crusius] ?). 

6.—In the following, marks of accent are added: II. 83 (KAY- 
TOCTACAYTOYOAH; acute on first O, circumflex on H; also 
coronis at bottom of line after TAC: all probably by first hand) ; 
III. 6 (XAAKINAA, acute on |); and VIII 14 (ANNA, circum- 
flex on ultima; first hand). See also IV. 2, under d, below. 

c.— At III. 49, KAAHOIN WCTE, after N above the line, in the 
first hand, a coronis is inserted, probably in first draft; also at II. 
83 (see under 4 above). 

@.—A short vowel is designated as such in VII. 108 (EAACAI; 
a™ over A, in first hand?), and at IV. 2 (TTYPACTON ; a short ™ is 
put over A, but at the same time a P is written above the T; the Y 
also bears a”: see ἢ. 177, note 2, above).’ 

e.— At the following places a corrupt text is indicated but no 
attempt is made to correct it, either by the first hand or by later 


among the τὰ παρατιθέμενα τοῖς ‘Ounpixots στίχοις ᾿Αριστάρχεια σημεῖα we read of 
the obelus, figured as a short horizontal line: ὁ δὲ ὀβελὸς πρὸς τὰ ἀθετούμενα ἐπὶ 
τοῦ ποιητοῦ, ἤγουν νενοθουμένα ἢ ὑποβεβλημένα (Osann, Anecd. Romanum, p. 3; 
ef. Nauck, Zex. Vindob. pp. 271 ἔ., also 274f., 277f.). In Plato texts: ὀβελὸς 
πρὸς τὴν ἀθέτησιν " dBedds περιεστιγμένος πρὸς τοὺς εἰκαίους ἀθετήσεις (Diog. 
Laert. III. 66). Our “obelus” in Herondas may sometimes be used with this 
value, but probably not: its various uses, as we have surveyed them, better fit 
the Aristarchean διπλῇ ἀπερίστικτος (πρὸς τὰ ἐνάντια Kal μαχόμενα, καὶ ἕτερα 
σχήματα πάμπολλα καὶ ἑξητήματα). It also differs from the obelus of the classical 
manuscripts, in that on our theory it is merely a conventional sign, originally 
adopted by our scribe and used by him as a memorandum, whereas the ordinary 
obeli represent a tradition of literary criticism going back usually to the Alex- 
andrine age, and were copied from manuscript to manuscript; cf. Weil, J/é/anges 
Graux, pp. 13 ff., on obeli in the Mss. 2 and B of Demosthenes. 

1 Except at this place, which was probably obelized for other reasons, no (7) 
is found at all in obelized verses. This suggests that these (7) marks were in the 
text before the obeli were written on the margin. 


182 John Henry Wright. 


hands: V. 59, Rutherford supplies (c)e; VI. 63, OIKEIN corrected 
by Crusius to οἰκέην [i.e. oixe/ny], by Rutherford and others to οἰκίην ; 
VII. 35 a fragmentary verse: obelus of peculiar form, inserted at 
first draft? ; VII. 46, if not a grave accent, the obelus calls attention 
to ambiguous grouping of letters ; VII. 88, 96, corrupt lines: restora- 
tion uncertain ; VII. στο, end of line unintelligible to scribe: prob- 
ably ἠθμόν ; VII. 126, correction is attempted but left incomplete : 
VIII. 21, fragmentary line. 

f.—In three places there seems to be nothing the matter with 
the text ; all of the lines, however, appear to have something inter- 
esting to the scribe: IV. 32, its ambiguous construction; IV. 50, 
perhaps, its droll Homeric reminiscence, and VII. 71, the extraordi- 
nary form of oath.’ Except for the consistent and exclusive use of 
the oblique line elsewhere to indicate corruption of text, we might 
infer that it was here used, like the διπλῇ ἀπερίστικτος, ascribed to 
Aristophanes of Byzantium, to point out passages remarkable for 
some reason or other. Otherwise it may have been only an accidental 
memorandum sign arbitrarily adopted by the scribe when engaged 
in revision. 


III. 
THE EARLIEST CORRECTIONS. 


THE subject of the earliest corrections in the papyrus, —their rela- 
tion to the original, and to later corrections, and their chronological 
sequence — is important in determining the character of the original 
of our copy and that of other manuscripts possibly used for collation. 
It is at the same time an extremely difficult subject, especially when 
investigated through the medium of a photographic facsimile of the 
papyrus, in which many peculiarities of the original fail to reproduce 
themselves. My remarks on this subject are offered tentatively : 
they are doubtless open to correction in detail, though I trust not to 
serious modification. 


1 Possibly, however, we ought to rule out these also. For in IV. 50 there 
seems to be a στιγμή after ἔσσετ, which, however, may have been put in, not as 
a punctuation mark, but like the ὑποδιαστολή ----ἰο be sure, not elsewhere occur- 
ring —to mark off the τ from ἡμέρα (cf. Proem. 11, for the only other certain 
instance of this sort in the papyrus; but see above, p. 170, note 2). And in VII. 
71, attention may have been merely called to μά, as different from the μᾶ, with 
circumflex accent, elsewhere found in the manuscript (e.g. I. 85, IV. 20, etc.). 


Flerondaea. 183 


An independent examination of the internal evidence available, in 
the collection of which the notes of Kenyon and of Crusius have 
been most helpful, makes it possible for us to reconstruct the early 
history of our papyrus somewhat as follows : 

The scribe had before him, as the original to be copied, a manu- 
script in which the verses were written line by line, with occasional 
spacings to indicate punctuation ; it was also provided, at least to 
some extent, with diacritical marks — παράγραφοι, the signs”,~, but 
not completely at least with signs for accent. It was written on the 
whole legibly, and in a style of writing not differing essentially from 
that of the papyrus, and exhibited peculiarities of orthography such 
as prevailed only in late Alexandrine times, and afterward. Not to 
take into consideration the perishableness’ of papyrus manuscripts 
when much used, this original could not have been prepared much 
before the first century B.c., if even as early as that. 

This original manuscript the scribe now copies,’ with reasonable 
fidelity, cutting himself a new reed once or twice. In copying he 
makes mistakes of various sorts: occasionally he unconsciously 
changes the Ionic forms of the original into the more familiar Attic 
forms,’ and sometimes slightly blunders in his grammar and syntax ; * 
here and there he appears to be carrying the thought, and not the 
exact words of the original in his mind, and thus when he writes he 
unconsciously substitutes a new word for the word first read ;° of 
course he makes mistakes in reading the letters, and occasionally 
gives us nonsense, and also writes verses metrically impossible. 


1Cf. Plin. V. 27. XIII. 83: he speaks of papyri two hundred years old as /on- 
ginqua monumenta, rarely met with. 

2 That our copy was not written from dictation is clear from the nature of 
several blunders, where the forms of the letters, not their sounds, are misappre- 
hended: eg. I. 2 (ATTOIKIHC for AT POI KIHC); 1. 76 (AI for I, in Aw- 
θεω); V. 65 (€ AOIN for EAOIN: ἐλθεῖν); ΠΙ. 19 (ΔΑΪπαρωτεραι: AI for 
AI: ie. δὲ λιπαρώτεραι); 111. 34 (AT for AT in aypev); IV. 94 (Aw for Awe). 

8 For example: I. 39 (χημερασ for xnuepac); 11. 7 ([wd]\ewo for [πό]λιοσ) ; 
11. 36 (οικιαν for οἰκίην); III. 59 {που for κου); V. 63 (αυθισ for avric), etc. 

4 He makes λίθος masculine in IV. 21; writes aorist subjunctive for future 
indicative in VIII. 3 (θάλψῃ after wéxpr(s)), and present subjunctive for aorist 
optative in III. 52 (Badd changed to βαλοι). 

5 At II. 64 he writes μοιραν, but at once changes it to μισθὸν by drawing his 
pen through the middle letters and writing wo over oipa. At III. 82 he wrote 


184 John Henry Wright. 


Some of his errors he detects just after they have been made, and 
these he corrects on the spot, either, when possible, by changing the 
actual forms of the letters, or by drawing his reed across the wrong 
letters and writing the correct ones just above. In the actual prog- 
ress of writing the first draft he probably does not copy the zapd- 
γραφοι, possibly not all the diacritical marks, and certainly not all the 
accents. 

His draft now completed, he takes it in hand for revision. That 
the original scribe revises the manuscript, and not another hand, is 
clear from the handwriting of many of the corrections. At first he 
carefully collates his copy with the original, and corrects innumerable 
blunders. It is at this time’ that he puts in the παράγραφοι, and 
some of the diacritical marks: letters and words to be omitted he 
now neatly indicates by putting points over them; letters or words 
to be substituted he now writes in between the lines, just above those 
that he had mistakenly written. Some of the errors or obscurities in 
his own written copy he cannot correct from his original: in these 
instances he dashes an “‘ obelus”’ in the margin to ΜΝ the verse as 
one requiring subsequent attention.” 

This collation now finished —a hurried collation, since he leaves 
a number of corrupt passages, not only uncorrected, but also un- 
noticed —he examines the “ obelized” lines in detail, and here for 
the first time appears to have called in the aid of a second manu- 


παιξω (fut. of παίζω; probably thinking of what he had written at 63; for the 
form, cf. Auth. Pal. XII. 211, Anacreont. 38. 8): the correct word was πρήξω. 
At III. 63, where he first wrote πέμπειν, probably following his copy, he at once 
changes the word to wa:fev, apparently a sudden conjectural emendation sug- 
gested by the context; πέμπειν is more probable: cf. Crusius ad Joc. 

1 The fact that the παράγραφοι are twice put in a line too soon suggests that 
the scribe’s eye ran down the column as he inserted them, and this would not 
have been the case if he had written them in each time after writing the line 
(cf. I. 65, V. 55). 

2 Cases where the obelized lines contain corrections certainly written by the 
first hand are II. 36, III. 80, IV. 11 and 67; perhaps also IV. 76. There is 
uncertainty about some of the other lines. 

It might be urged that the obelus was inserted by a late hand to call atten- 
tion to much-corrected verses. But it may be replied, first, that the obeli have 
the characteristics of the first hand, and, secondly, that many other verses show- 
ing much greater correction are not obelized. The explanation given above 
accounts for all the phenomena; the other one does not. 


Flerondaea. 185 


script: i.e., he uses a second manuscript only to correct otherwise 
obscure passages, not for the purpose of preparing a critical edition.’ 
In this second manuscript the accents in particular were more fully 
given than in his original, and the reading of the text was different 
in a few places ; for the obelized lines in question he adopts the read- 
ings and corrections suggested by the manuscript, though occasionally 
he appears to reject them on second thoughts. 

From the spasmodic way in which the στιγμαί are put in, we might 
infer either that the scribe began to copy these marks while first 
writing, but soon wearied of the effort and gave it up, only now and 
then later in the progress of this writing copying a στιγμή, or, what 
is more probable, that he or another later hand at a subsequent time 
began, but did not complete, the task of punctuating with the points.” 

The following examples, taken with those mentioned above and in 
the notes, will at once bear out and elucidate some of the positions 
here taken. 


IV. 83. ,KAAOICIEMTTPOIC. At first examination and compari- 
son with his original the line looked faulty, and was obelized, but on 
closer comparison he found that by inserting | after TT it became intel- 
ligible. He thereupon cancels the obelus. (On the M, see p. 176, top.) 

IV. το. Here he had written |A€W, which could not be right. Appeal 
to the original failed to solve the doubt. An obelus is dashed in: on 
comparison with another manuscript, or perhaps as a result of his own 
conjecture, he now writes ΛΕ... 

III. 36. OIKIAN. After comparing his original and correcting A to H, 


1 Except in obelized lines, there are no first-hand corrections in the manu- 
script that must be accounted for on the theory of an appeal to another manu- 
script. (For in VI. 38 καλόν for σοφόν is in a later hand, and in I. 15 — μυι,οσον 
—the coronis was inserted merely to indicate an elision of a (2.6., not vids), of 
course not to differentiate nuvi’ ὅσον from the other reading μῦς ὅσον, preserved in 
various proverbial forms, here given in the margin in a late hand.) 

2 If the insertion of the στιγμαί had been undertaken by the scribe, it prob- 
ably would have been carried out to the end, as were the other parts of his colla- 
_tion. He could hardly have inserted these marks, at least at the earliest stage, 
except as he copied them; but it is hardly conceivable that the original manu- 
script could have been as erratically punctuated as the earlier στιγμαί indicate. 
The points were certainly put in after the verses were written, since no space is 
allowed for them. In view of all these facts it seems more likely that the στιγμαί 
were, in the main, the work of later owners of the manuscript. 


186 John Henry Wright. 


the word is still puzzling: he obelizes it; later, on comparison with 
another manuscript, he inserts the acute accent, which shows that this is 
οἰκίην, not οἰκείην (cf. VI. 63, and p. 182). 

V. 19. AQ is corrected to AE (δουμαι, i.e. δέομαι, to Beda) : hence 
O and € in the original manuscript must have resembled each other. See 
on VIII. 3, above, p. 174, note I. 

VIII. 6. KAIACTHCON. This reading, suggested by the ἄστηθι at 
the beginning of the line, is on revision seen to be false; the scribe points 
C, H and C, and changes T to Y, restoring the correct reading ἅψον. 

III. 45. The scribe wrote HMEOA (for ἡἥμαιθα), probably through 
association with 1st pl. mid., and not because he pronounced € and ΑἹ 
alike; the latter is not to be expected in a manuscript of this date, and 
there are no other cases of this confusion in the papyrus: of course early 
E| is often given by |, and not seldom even €| as written is corrected, by 
a superior dot, to]. The correction at III. 45 was made by a later hand. 


The manuscript, thus prepared for use, passes into other hands. 
In its later history it suffers more or less modification. Errors 
previously undetected are now corrected (IV. 61, 80, etc.) ; conjec- 
tural emendation is attempted, sometimes unhappily. Readings, 
interlinear or marginal, are apparently imported from other manu- 
scripts, from Herondaean quotations in other authors, or, in the case 
of some proverbial expressions, from variant forms in literature or 
life. ‘The glossator appears with his bits of scholia, very few in num- 
ber, and in abbreviated form. 


In making this attempt to ascertain the oldest accessible readings 
on record or reasonably to be deduced from the record, we by no 
means would assume that text-criticism should cease upon the com- 
pletion of this task. Indeed the large work will yet remain of tracing 
the text back to the pen of the author, and in this more interest- 
ing work conjectural emendation must play a large part. But the 
conjectural reconstruction of the text can never safely begin until 
the utmost possible has been made of the record. 


flerondaea. 187 


IV. 
Σφρηγίς IN HeEROND. I. 55. 


Tue facsimile of the papyrus at I. 55 reads: 
KINEWNAOIK"Z’* YF7ZfyPIHN οφρζζ- 


The gap at the middle, between τ and y, in which there is room for 
from seven to nine letters, has been filled by Biicheler and others so 
as to read ἄθικτζος vat Κυθ]ηρίην 5 by Crusius and others, ἄθικτί ος 
és Κυθ]ηρίην. The latter is palaeographically more probable. The 
close of the line is universally understood to be odpnyis; but the 
traces of the ink quite as well agree with σφριγῆιϊις, or even possibly 
with σφριγῆ.. The very distinct break in the continuity of the 
writing before the letters σῴρ shows that there is a pause in the 
sense at this point, i.e. that the last word cannot be taken closely 
with the foregoing. It is mainly in the light of this consideration 
that the interpretation here offered is new.’ 

Now σφριγῶ, with its short penult in classical usage, is impossible, 
and is hardly to be justified by Oppian, Cy. III. 368, where 
σφριγάᾳ might be read for MS. σφριγᾷ, or by Draco Stratonicensis 
(p. 119. 7 Hermann), who gives σφριγῶ in a list of words with long 
penult, — a list teeming with demonstrably false quantities.* 


1 The final letter is probably o, but it may be a blotted ει. 

2 There are traces of the σ of ἄθικτος, and Κυθ is fairly certain. The space 
between this ¢ and Κυθηρίην appears to me much too small for val, at least as val 
is written a few lines below, and elsewhere (I. 66, 86; VII. 71, etc.). 

8 Rutherford has proposed ἄθικτος ἐὼν Κυθήρης" ἤν, σφρηγίς, but it cannot be 
wholly right: it offends against the metre besides being too much of a departure 
from the clear traces of the letters on the papyrus. All other editors have com- 
bined σῴφρηγίς closely with the foregoing words: either with ἄθικτος, or with ἡ 
Κυθηρίης (Biicheler’s first proposition). 

4 If σφριγῆι were possible, it would refer to the manly vigor and strength of 
the athlete Gryllus, lover of Metriche. In an epigram of Leontius we read 
of an aged athlete vanquishing his vigorous younger rivals: πρέσβυς ὅτι σφριγόων- 
τας ἐν ἱπποδάμῳ πλέον ἀλκᾷ | νικήσας, Anth. Pal. XVI. 359; cf. also By σφρι- 
yGvres ἐμπορεύονται, said by Achaeus περὶ τῆς εὐεξίας τῶν ἀθλητῶν διηγούμενος, 
Athen. X. 414 C, Ὁ. (Nauck, p. 747). — Σφριγῆις, if admissible, could be taken 
either as a parenthetical interrogative (like γελᾷς in II. 74), addressed to Me- 
triche, — ‘ Don’t you glow with desire?’ (at this description); or as a parenthetical 
remark —‘ Ah! you glow with desire, I see.’ 


188 John Henry Wright. 


Rejecting σφριγῆιϊις or σφριγῆι, and accepting the reading σφρηγίς, 
we have yet to find a wholly satisfactory interpretation of the word 
in this context. It is possible in classical Greek to understand 
σφρηγίς (σφραγίς), ‘seal,’ in the literal sense, as either the metal 
seal or the stone (with inscribed device or legend, or uninscribed) 
or as the impression made by whatever kind of a seal, often also 
expressed by σφράγισμα. Horace’s grata sigilla pudico (Lpist. 1. 
20. 3), cited by Biicheler, is hardly apposite, at least in the meaning 
attached to it by Horace. Here the reference is to seals impressed 
upon the barred doors of the apartments of the chaste one, who 
delights in the protection assured by them. Horace probably had 
in mind such passages? as Aristophanes’s ταῖς γυναικωνίτισιν | σφραγῖ- 
das ἐπιβάλλουσιν ἤδη Kal μοχλοὺς | τηροῦντες ἡμᾶς (Zhesm. 414-6) ; 
or Euripides’s μόνη δὲ κλῇθρ᾽ ἐγὼ σφραγίζομαι (Phaethon, Fr. 781. 10 
Nauck) ; or the Euripidean® ὅστις δὲ μοχλοῖς καὶ διὰ σφραγισμάτων | 
σῴζει δάμαρτα (7. G. /.,? Eur. 1063. 9 Nauck) ; or Lycophron’s τὰ δ᾽ 
ἄλλα OpirdBpwros ἄψαυστος δόμων | σφραγὶς δοκεύει (Ax. 508, where 
see also the Scholiast), but hardly the passage in Herondas, which 
gives us a situation the exact opposite of that in Horace. That 
Metriche shall cease to be pudica is Gyllis’s contention and errand. 

The use of σφρηγίς in the sense of an uncut stone — “a gem for 
Aphrodite’s service”’ (R. Ellis), gemma Veneris (Biicheler’s first prop- 
osition) —is possible here, but hardly certain, in view of other 


1 Most of the examples refer to the engraved metal or stone, but there are a 
few where the uncut stone is meant. The interchangeableness of the two senses 
of ‘seal’ and ‘impression’ are seen in Xenoph. /ed/en. I. 4. 3, and VII. 1. 39: 
in the former σφράγισμα, in the latter σφραγίς are used of the impression. Cf. 
Dittenberger, Sy//loge, I. 195. 15. See also, for the various senses of the word, 
Steph.-Dind. Zhes., συν. 

2 Aristoph. Av. 560, ἐπιβάλλειν | σφραγῖδ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τὴν ψωλὴν, ἵνα μὴ 
βινῶσ᾽ ἐκείνας, is an amusing parody on this practice. 

8 The passage in which these words occur is ascribed to Menander by Stobaeus, 
Flor. 74.27. Cobet conjectured Euripidean authority (ον. Lect. p. 46), and his 
conjecture has been confirmed by a sentence in the recently discovered Choricius, 
Apol. pro mimis 7. 4 Graux (τραγικὴν ῥῆσιν... ἀνδρὸς μισογύνου καὶ σώφρονος). 

An expansion of this thought is found in a Danae of Byzantine date, a feeble 
Euripidean imitation: πατὴρ δέ μιν κλήσας | ἐν παρθενῶσι σφραγῖσι δέμας φυλάσ- 
σει (7. G. &, Eur. 1132. 58, 59 Nauck). The same idea was expressed in 
Lucian, 7172. 13: κατακεκλεῖσθαι.... ὑπὸ μοχλοῖς καὶ κλεισὶ καὶ σημείων ἐπιβολαῖς 
...kaddmrep τὴν Δανάην παρθενεύεσθαι, κτλ. 


Flerondaea. 189 


more probable possibilities. If the lexica and word-lists are to be 
trusted, this sense of σφραγίς is mainly petrographical and technical, 
and not popular. There remains to be considered the interpretation 
which takes the expression— ἄθικτος és Κυθηρίην odpyyis—in a 
figurative sense, ‘a seal unbroken in love,’ or ‘a seal of inviolate 
virginity.’ In support of this view of the passage Crusius cites 
Nonnus, λυσαμένη δ᾽ ἅψαυστον ἑῆς σφραγῖδα κορείης (Dionys. 11. 305), 
and compares Paul the Silentiary,’ χρύσεος ἀψαύστοιο διέτμαγεν ἅμμα 
κορείας | Ζεὺς, διαδὺς Aavdas χαλκελάτους θαλάμους (Anth. Pal. V. 217; 
also Suid. s.vv. Κάσιον ὄρος, appara). These examples appear to be 
very apposite, and almost silence objection, especially if we group 
with them the ἄψαυστος. . . σφραγίς of Lycophron. But they 
obtain compelling force only on three rather violent assumptions, 
viz. (1) that the expression ‘inviolate seal of virginity’ in the words 
ἄθικτος (ἄψαυστος) σφραγίς with some word for love or maidenhood, 
had become a stereotyped phrase in early Hellenistic poetry ; (2) that 
as such it was here used by Herondas, and (3), that as such it was, 
centuries later, reproduced by Nonnus and Paul. The truth of these 
assumptions it will be impossible to demonstrate, at least from these 
examples or from others like them. No one would dream of turn- 
ing to Lycophron as a mirror of current usage, and both Nonnus 
and Paul, Christians of the fourth century a.D., are quite too far 
removed from the Hellenistic age to require us to explain the 
phenomena of their art only on the theory of an imitation of Hellen- 
istic models. The collocation ἄθικτος σφραγίς is not in itself so 
extraordinary as to require us, finding it in Lycophron, to view it as 
already a stereotyped one, or to prevent our taking the words sepa- 
rately under some circumstances. The words ἄθικτος (ἄψαυστος) 
σφρηγὶς παρθενίης, κορείης, or the like, do not occur in the Anthology, 


1 It is not impossible that the received text of this much-quoted epigram may 
be incorrect, and that we should read χρύσεος ἀθραύστοιο διέτμαγεν ἅμμα Kopelas 
for ἀψαύστοιο. This is the reading of Cod. Leidensis of Suidas, s. Κάσιον, though 
elsewhere we have ἀψαύστοιο. Probably the situation is conceived by Paul in 
this epigram, about Danae imprisoned in a tower, much in the way that a cor- 
responding situation is represented by his contemporary Agathias in Anth. Pal. 
V. 294. 19, ἐξαλάπαξα φίλης πύργωμα κορείης, and a classical adjective for 
πύργωμα and a word used in the sense of πύργωμα is ἄθραυστος, rather than 
ἄψαυστος : Eur. Hec. 17, πύργοι ἄθραυστοι. 


190 John Henry Wrighi. 


where if the expression had become common in Hellenistic times, 
it would certainly have been reflected, so numerous are the situations 
that might well call for it; indeed, the frequency of the some- 
what similar dupa παρθενίας renders yet more significant the absence 
of phrases with σφραγίς. It seems to me quite probable that the 
expression ἄψαυστος σφραγίς was suggested to Nonnus, if not by 
Lycophron, by current usage in his own time,’ in which the word 
σφραγίς had gained, largely through Christian influence, many new 
and sacred associations. ‘This expression he combines with refer- 
ences to maidenhood, influenced in part by literary models from the 
later epigrammatists (ἅμμα παρθενίας κτλ.), and in part by Christian 
ideas which had given to maidenhood as well as to σφραγίς new 
meanings.? Paul the Silentiary, known as an imitator and student 
of Nonnus and of Antipater of Sidon, mainly imitates these and other 
late writers, and not necessarily writers of the Alexandrine age ; he is 
besides also more or less under the influence of certain Latin poets.® 
Hence the presence in Nonnus and Paul of expressions apparently 
equivalent to the ἄθικτος és Kv@nypinv odpnyis of Herondas by no 
means proves that the latter must be taken in the sense of the 
former. 

The strong punctuation in the verse between Κυθηρίην and σφρηγίς 
requires us to take ἄθικτος ἐς Kv@npinv together, and to separate them 
from odpyyis. This independent use of ἄθικτος can be abundantly 
illustrated: cf. πατρὸς . . . φιλότητι Oye, Soph. 47. 14103; ἄθικτον δ᾽ 
οὐκέτ᾽ ἂν πέλοι κέαρ, Aesch. Suppl. 784 (where ἄθικτον is Dindorf’s 
safe emendation for ἄφυκτον) ; πάσης κακίας ἄθικτος Bios, Plut. um. 
20. In the sense of ‘virgin,’ ‘chaste,’ cf. ἄθικτον εὐνήν, Eur. He. 


1 The words κορείη, ἄψαυστος, παρθενίη very frequently recur in Nonnus, and 
are used in a hackneyed way. 

2 Cf. ἐπειδὴ τὸ σφράγισμα τῆς παρθενίας καὶ τὸ ἐναγὲς πρόσχημα τῶν ἀγγέλων 
περιβεβλήμεθα αἱ ἀναξίαι, Martyr. S. Arethae, ap. Boissonade, Anecd. Graeca, V. 
p. 15. See Steph.-Dind. Thesaurus, on σφραγίς and its various compounds. 

8 See Merian-Genast, De Paulo Silentiario Byzantino Nonni sectatore, Leip- 
zig, 1889. — Antipater of Sidon has ὁ πρὶν ἄθικτα | ἡμετέρας λύσας ἅμματα παρ- 
Gevias (Anth. Pal. VII. 164, found in Kaibel, Zpigr. Graeca, 248. 8, and compare 
also Meleager’s παρθενίας ἅμματα λυομένα, Anth. Pal. VII. 182) while Paul writes 
ἀψαύστοιο διέτμαγεν ἅμμα xopelas.—The most superficial comparison discloses 
the dependence of Paul’s epigram (Anth. Pal. V. 217) upon Horace, Carm, 
III. 16; see Jacobs ad Joc. 


Herondaea. IQI 


795; γυναικὸς θιγεῖν, Eur. ZZ 255: and in the gloss ἄθικτος " ἡ παρ- 
θένος in Bekk. Anecd. 828, where the word is quoted from Araros, 
a poet of the New Comedy, the reference is, of course, to a maiden. 
These and other examples justify us in taking ἄθικτος és Κυθηρίην, 
like ἄθικτος Κυπρίδος, as ‘ [hitherto] untouched of love, heart-free.’ 

It may be that in the appended σφρηγίς we have only an emphatic 
appositive, —‘ untouched by love, —a very seal,’’— but I am disposed 
to believe that there is here an added thought, codrdinate with the 
leading expressions: viz. the thought of secrecy which often attaches 
to σφραγίς and its derivatives, rather than that of inviolateness or 
purity. This sense—not sufficiently noted in L. and S.—may be 
illustrated by the following examples:? σφράγιζε τὸν λόγον σιγῇ, 
Solon af. Stob. Serm. III. 79, p. 87 Mein.; ἀρρήτων ἐπέων γλώσσῃ 
σφρηγὶς ἐπικείσθω, Lucian ap. Anth. Pal. X. 42; ἄλλα δὲ θαύματα 
πολλὰ copy σφρηγίσσατο σιγῇ, Nonn. Joh. xxi. 139; χείλεσι δ᾽ ἃ 
φθόγγοισιν ἐπεσφρηγίσσατο σιγήν, Nonn. Dionys. XLVII. 218; ἀλλά ἑ 
τέχνη χαλκείης ἐπέδησεν ὑπὸ σφρηγῖδα σιωπῆς, Christod. Ζεῤἧγ. 31, 
1.6, Anth. Pal. II. v. 31. Probably it was in large part the idea 
of secrecy associated with the seal that lent special force to σφραγίς 
and its derivatives in reference to the Greek mysteries: ¢.g., ἐπι- 
σφραγίζεσθαι means ‘to initiate,’ ‘to make one of the μύσται (μύω, 
‘to be closed’).’ Of course the term has chiefly the connotations. 
of authority and completeness, and these meanings develop especially 
in the numerous applications of the words to Christian usages. (Cf. 
Steph.-Dind. Zhes., s.vv.) 

This interpretation— whereby o¢pnyis is understood to suggest the 
idea of secrecy—is quite in the spirit of Herondas. It furnishes 
an additional example of a motive elsewhere found in the mimes, 
that of caution and silence in matters of love and intrigue (I. 47, 


1To Paul the Silentiary the expression might mean ‘ untouched of love, yet 
bearing love’s own image or seal’: cf. τὴν πρὶν ἐνεσφρήγισεν ”Epws| θρασὺς jelxéva, 
Anth, Pal. V. 274.— Rutherford’s ἤν, σφρηγίς, ‘look, his seal,’ is rather abrupt 
and harsh, but it has the advantage of preserving the punctuation. 

2 In Aeschylus the same thought is expressed by κλής: ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι κἀμοὶ κλὴς 
ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ φύλαξ (Frag. 316 Nauck), with which compare Soph. O. C. 1052, 
θνατοῖσιν ὧν καὶ χρυσέα κλῃς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ BéBaxe προσπόλων Ἑὐμολπιδᾶν, and 
Frag. 849. 2 Nauck. Cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 36, note. Ancient rings made 
of key and seal combined have been sometimes found: cf. Daremberg et Saglio, 


Dict. Ant. 1. p. 295, fig. 349. 


192 John Henry Wright. 


VI. 70). It is also in keeping with the context and with the course 
of thought: the crowning excellence in the young athlete com- 
mended by Gyllis to the favor of the coy Metriche is his habit of 
perfect secrecy and discretion ; he is ‘very rich, modest and quiet,} 
heart-free,—and silent; at sight of you, etc.’ (πλουτέων τὸ καλόν, 
οὐδὲ κάρφος ἐκ τῆς γῆς | κινέων, ἄθικτος és Κυθηρίην, ---- σφρηγίς " | ). 
Finally, the juxtaposition of similar ideas at III. 66, 67 (ἐγώ σε 
θήσω κοσμιώτερον κούρης | κινοῦντα μηδὲ κάρφος) supports this inter- 
pretation. Perhaps, however, in this passage we have only a literary 
reminiscence of Aristophanes, Zys. 474. 

If the papyrus would only allow us to read either ἄθικτος, vai 
Κυθηρίην, σφρηγίς or ἄθικτος, ναὶ μὰ Κυπρίην, σφρηγίς (the adjective 
having a negative force) there would be no objection to connecting 
ἄθικτος and odpyyis, ‘unbroken seal.’ But these appear to be 
palaeographically out of the question. 


V. 


MOLON, SIMON, AND ARATUS. 


τριθημέρᾳ Mdpwva ypappariCovros 
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῷ τὸν Μάρωνα ἐποίησεν 
οὗτος Σίμωνα ὃ χρηστός. --- HEROND. III. 24-26. 
εἷς δ᾽ ἀπὸ τᾶσδε, φέριστε, Μόλων ἄγχοιτο παλαίστρας. 
— THEOC. 74. VII. 125. 


TuHE Scholium on Theoc. /d. VII. 125 in Cod. Ambr. 222 (2), as 
reported by Ziegler, reads Μόλων ἢ Σίμων, “Aparos ἀντεραστής." 
The vulgate reading is Μόλων καὶ Σίμων, ᾿Αράτου ἀντερασταί. Before 
the publication of the Ambrosian Scholia, Meineke had already pro- 
posed to emend the vulgate to Μόλων ἢ Σίμων, ᾿Αράτου ἀντεραστής. 
This reading, apparently confirmed by that of Ambr. 2, where, how- 
ever, "Aparos ἀντεραστής stands (not ᾿Αράτου ἀντεραστής), has been 
accepted, as definitely established, by Ziegler, Hiller, Maass, and 
others. It has been suggested by Hiller* with much _ plausibility 


1 The gloss in Diogenianus (VI. 67) on the proverbial expression. .. μηδὲ 
κάρφος κινεῖν, is ἐπὶ τῶν ἡσύχων. Suidas has ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡσύχου. 

2 This reading, at least Μόλων ἢ Σίμων, is given also in Par. L (Reg. 2831). 

8 On this theory of Hiller, I should be disposed to explain Σίμων as originally 


Herondaea. 193 


that a Simon might have been mentioned by Aratus in one of his 
lesser poems’ as a rival in love, and thus may have been regarded 
by the Scholiast as identical with Molon (ἢ Σίμων). Meineke’s 
suggestion that Μόλων in the text of Theocritus is a corruption of 
Σίμων is hardly probable in view of the impossible quantity of the 
penult of the latter word. 

The vulgate reading goes back to the manuscripts used by Cal- 
lierges in his edi#to princeps of the Scholia (Rome, 1506); these 
were several in number (ἐκ διαφόρων ἀντιγράφων), and at least one 
of them appears to have belonged to the same family as Ambr. 4.7 
If we bear in mind the easy confusion of the ancient abbreviation 
for καί with majuscule ἡ it is not difficult for us to believe that even 
Ambr. 2’s Μόλων ἢ Σίμων may be a mistake for an earlier Μόλων καὶ 
Σίμων. On palaeographical grounds then we might accept as the 
original reading something like this: Μόλων καὶ Σίμων" "Aparos 
ἀντεραστής (‘Molon and Simon: Aratus was their rival in love’), 
which involves the least possible departure from the manuscript 
tradition ; or the vulgate reading Μόλων καὶ Σίμων " ᾿Αράτου ἀντερασταί 
(‘Molon and Simon: Aratus’s rivals in love’). 

It is well known that in the Scholia Vetustiora of Theocritus lurk 
several pieces of extremely explicit information upon matters in Cos, 
which may safely be ascribed to an early commentator on the poet, 
himself a resident or native of the island, apparently recording and 
reporting stories and traditions locally current. This was Nicanor 
the Coan: he is certainly the authority for several items in the long 
Scholium on Theoc. Μή. VII. 6, where he is cited by name (Νικάνωρ 
6 Koos trouvnpati~wv), probably also for much in Scho/. Idd. 1. 57, 


a marginal explanatory gloss in a text in which μολών (participle) was read or 
understood: see below, p. 197, note 2. The Scholiast of Ambr. 4, endeavoring to 
stand on two stools and to reconcile the older and better text-tradition of Μόλων 
(proper name) with the suggested Σέμων, connects the two names in his remark 
on the verse. But I do not believe we are forced to such a conclusion. 

1On Aratus’s ἐλεγεῖαι, ἐπιγράμματα, and παίγνια, see now Maass, Arazea, 
pp. 230 ff. (Wilamowitz-Kiessling, Pii/. Unt. XII., 1892). In the epigrams 
Philocles was celebrated: Anth. Pal. XII. 129. 

2 For some remarks on the very complex sources of Callierges’s Scholia, see 
Ahrens, Bucolicorum Graecorum ... Reliquiae, vol. 11. pp. lxi, lxii.—I regret 
that it is impossible for me to identify the manuscript sources at the place under 
discussion. 


194 Sohn Henry Wright. 


V. 123, VII. 1, 5, 10, 21, 45, XVII. 68, 69, Syr. 12; and doubtless 
to him also we owe some of our information as to Theocritus’s family 
connexions at Cos. 

Now it seems to me highly probable that among the minor chvo- 
nigues scandaleuses of the prominent men of the little island was a 
piquant story to the effect that the great Aratus,’ and two other per- 
sons known as Molon and Simon were rivals in certain love-affairs in 
which one Philinus figured; and that this story, gaining doubtless 
greater currency from the fact that the liaison may have been cele- 
brated in part by Aratus in one of his minor poems, was recorded by 
Nicanor in his commentary, and lies at the bottom of the Scholium 
on 74“. VII. 125. It is a matter of indifference to the argument 
whether the names Molon, Simon, and Philinus were the actual? 
names of the persons concerned or were partially fictitious, though 
the former seems to me more probable. At all events it was under 
the names of Molon and Simon that the story was current, and was 
reported by Nicanor. Molon, from the fact of his mention in such 
good company? as that of 742, VII., which appears to have included, 


1 Maass, Aratea, c. viii (de Coo poetarum sodalico), discusses the question of 
Aratus’s sojourn in Cos, and his friendships in the island, where he passed several 
years in his youth. The Phaenxomena were there composed, and were read and 
recited to the literary coterie, mainly pupils of Philetas, among whom Aratus was 
a leading figure. — Were Herondas, and, after an interval, Artemidorus, the editor 
of Theocritus, later members of the same fraternity? 

2 From the fact that so many of the persons mentioned by Theocritus in /d. 
VII. appear under fictitious names (see the next note), and commonly in forms 
shorter than those of their actual names, Maass suggests that Molon is a pseudonym 
for an otherwise unknown Anchimolus (Μόλων ἄγχοιτο : 125). He and Knaack 
associate Philinus with Philocles, zd¢d. pp. 230 f., 322 f. But the identification 
of Philinus and Philocles is by no means certain: Philinus may well have been 
the actual name of a real person; and certainly Aratus’s own name appears in 
this idyl in an undisguised form, as does also that of Philetas. The presence of 
the name Molon in Coan legend is an argument for the name Molon rather 
than Anchimolus: Dibbelt, Quaestiones Coae mythologae, Greifswald, 1891, cited 
by Maass. 

8 Philetas (v. 40); Aratus (v. 98, 122); Theocritus (Σιμιχίδας, vv. 21, 50, 96; 
cf. Syrinx 12); Dosiades (Avxléas, vv. 12, 27, 55, 91; unless Lycidas be O. Rib- 
beck’s Astacides; he cannot have been Gercke’s Callimachus); Alexander 
Aetolus (Tirupos, i.e. Σάτυρος, the name of Alexander’s father, 72); Asclepiades 
(Σικελίδας, 40). With “Apioris (v. 99) Maass (Zc. p. 320) would identify Aris- 
totherus the astronomer; Bergk makes of Aristis the astronomer Aristarchus of 


Herondaea. 195 


besides Theocritus, Philetas, and Aratus, the names of Dosiades, 
Alexander Aetolus, Asclepiades, and possibly Hegesianax, Alexus, 
and Aristotherus, was doubtless a person of some distinction. And 
the same might have been true of Simon. Unless he was a Coan 
citizen, perhaps we have in this name a vague reminiscence of 
another hitherto unsuspected member of the Coan fraternity of 
poets, viz. Simias' of Rhodes, the author of the Alae, Ovum 


Samos. Hiaberlin (Carmina figurata Graeca, pp. 53, 54) finds Hermesianax 
referred to in ’Ayedvat (vv. 52, 61); Alexus (Athen. xIv. 620 E; this name may 
be the double for Alexander Aetolus; οἵ. Crusius, Fahrbb. f. Philol. 143, p. 387) 
in ᾿Αμύντας οΥ ᾿Αμύντιχος (vv. 2, 132); and a possible Pericles, brother of Theoc- 
ritus, in Evxpiros (vv. 1, 131). 

Probably Haberlin is not right in identifying Φιλῖνος (vv. 105, 121) with the 
runner of the same name, friend of Daphnis, in Theoc. Jd. 11. 115. The latter, 
as Wilamowitz has suggested, is certainly the famous Coan sprinter who won 
the prize in the δίαυλος at Olympia in at least two successive Olympiads (B.c. 264, 
260: Euseb. Chron. I., Schéne, vol. I. pp. 208, 209; cf. also Paus. VI. 17. 2, who 
makes him winner at five Olympic contests — boys’ race, B.c. 268? H. Forster, 
Die Sieger in den Olympischen Spielen, nos. 440-445). If there is at vv. 98 ff. 
a reference to an actual love-affair of Aratus’s youth,—and this seems highly 
probable, since with all its anachronisms 74. VII. gains its main charm from its 
reminiscent character,—this Philinus, in the prime of his youthful powers in 
260 B.C., could hardly have been old enough, if actually then born, to have been 
the object of Aratus’s affections as early as circa B.C. 292-288, when Aratus appears 
to have sojourned in Cos as a young man. Perhaps, however, unless the name 
be wholly fictitious or a substitute for that of Philocles or of some other person, 
—it is the type of the youthful lover in Eupolis (Po/. Fr. 206, p. 314 Kock; so 
Crusius), — Aratus’s Philinus may have been, as Haberlin suggests, the one named 
by Strato (C.A. III. p. 362 Kock), or the glossographer of Athen. xvi. 681, 682 
(pupil of Philetas?). But the extreme frequency of the name Φιλῖνος, espe- 
cially in Coan inscriptions, should make us pause before insisting upon an iden- 
tification. The name, referring to different persons, occurs in the following 
inscriptions, not later than the third century B.c.: Paton-Hicks, Jwscriptions of 
Cos, nos. 10 6 48; 10 ¢ 36, 70, 75, 83, and 45 ὦ 9. 

It is an interesting coincidence that on the same set of stones, to be dated 
not far from B.C. 260, we find the names of Nannacus, Aratus (of course not the 
poet, who had long since left Cos), Philinus, and Simus (see the next note), 
referring each to more than one person. One of the older inscriptions (Paton- 
Hicks, no. 149) is that of a family Simonidae (Διὸς Ἱκεσίου Σιμωνιδᾶν). 

1 Of the date and literary affiliations of Simias we know little. He preceded 
the tragic poet Philicus (Hephaest. Auch. p. 58, Gaisf.: in Athen. v. 198 B.c. 
his name appears as Philiscus); wrote in his carmina figurata a kind of 
poem, on which Dosiades and Theocritus tried their hands, and like Asclepiades 


196 John Henry Wright. 


and Securis, companion-pieces of Dosiades’s Ara and Theocritus’s 
Syrinx. 

Have we not in Herond. III. 25, 26 another covert reference, if 
not to this particular story, at least to the two citizens or residents of 
Cos named in it? The Coan affinities and connexions of Herondas 
are everywhere evident in the mimes.’ And in this same third mime 
we have at least two passages where we may safely see local allusions.’ 
At III. το, in ἣν Ναννάκου κλαύσω, there is probably a hit at a Coan 
worthy, if at the same time a personal application of a proverbial 
expression. The extremely rare proper name Nannacus is found on 
a Coan inscription of the same period as Herondas. And in ras 
ἑβδόμας τ᾽ ἄμεινον eixadas τ᾽ olde | τῶν ἀστροδιφέων (III. 53, 54), 
with its novel dorpodideds, it is extremely likely that there is an 
allusion to the Coan school of astronomers, established by Aris- 
totherus, if not earlier, and represented at the time of Herondas 
apparently by Dositheus.* In the light of these parallels it does not 
seem to me too violent to assume that in the Molon and Simon of 
III. 25, 26 —which I suggest for the Μάρων and Σίμων of the papy- 
rus —we have a third local touch, which would be highly appreciated 
by Herondas’s Coan readers. At the same time we must not forget 
that the word Siuwy might carry with it, at this place, several second- 
ary suggestions, since it is not only the name of many very respec- 
table people in antiquity, but also has some other connotations at 
once ludicrous and otherwise objectionable.*| Names from the circle 


gave his name to a metre. His date and birthplace, his poetic tastes and his 
activity as Homeric glossographer make it probable that he was, like Theocritus, 
a pupil of Philetas at Cos, circa 300-290 B.c. Cf. Susemihl, Gesch. d. Griech. 
Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit, I. pp. 179-182; II. p. 660. 

The name Σιμίας might well be disguised in Σέμων, or the two could easily 
interchange: compare Παυσανίας, Παυσίας, Ilavowv referring to the same person; 
Σῖμος = Σίμων, Strabo xiv. 648. Cf. Crusius, Fakrdd. 143, pp. 385 ff. 

1Cf. Crusius, Untersuchungen zu den Mimiamben des Herondas, pp. 186 f., 
8, 34, 56, 84, 113, 125, and the index to the same scholar’s text-edition, where 
words found both in Herondas and in the inscriptions and other Coan records are 
designated by an asterisk. 

2 The fact that the ἑβδόμη and eixds are spoken of as holidays both in this 
mime (53; cf. V. 80) and in Coan inscriptions (Paton-Hicks, zdid. nos. 369. 3, 
402*. 6, etc.) cannot be pressed, since these days were also elsewhere holidays. 
Cf. Crusius, Untersuchungen, pp. 68, 113. 

ὃ Maass, Aratea, p. 321, note 56. 

4 Crusius, Untersuchungen, p. 60. 


Herondaea. 197 


of the doctus poeta Aratus, itself the school of the poet-ypaypatixds 
Philetas, might very well be chosen by the fond father in his attempt 
to examine his son on the rudiments of letters, the first step in litera- 
ture (γραμματίζοντος τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῷ). Possibly also in the Φιλαίψιον 
of Herond. I. 5, daughter of the go-between Gyllis,’ we may see 
the double of the frail youth who had stirred the emotions of Aratus 
and his friends. 

If, now, Molon (or Maron) and Simon belong together in the 
Coan story, it is clear that if the Μόλων 23 of Theocritus is correct, 
the Μάρων of Herondas must be wrong; or, vice versa, that the 
Μόλων of Theocritus must be a corruption of Μάρων. In my opinion 
Μόλων is too strongly fortified to be dislodged from Theocritus and 
his commentator. In its favor are the tradition of the best manu- 
scripts, and, apparently, the text at the bottom of the Scholia Vetus- 
tiora. It is perhaps also sustained by Eustathius, who is full of 
Theocritean reminiscences, in the words Μόλωνες of παρὰ τῷ κωμικῷ, 
ὅ τε ἥρως [read ἐρῶν] καὶ ὃ σκωπτόμενος (p. 882. 24). Nowa hero 
Molon is nowhere mentioned in Greek literature, so far as I know, 
unless he lies behind the word Molon which is found in Coan 
mythology. I suggest that ἥρως is here a corruption for ἐρῶν (‘the 
lover’), and that in appending this epithet Eustathius had in mind, 
though vaguely, the Molon of Theoc. 7d. VII. 125. The Μόλων 
ὃ σκωπτόμενος is the one mentioned in Aristoph. Ran. 55. Eusta- 
thius might very well have here connected both the Molons with 
the poet of comedy, through a slightly confused recollection of a 
sentence in the Didymean commentary on Aristophanes, of which we 


1 The original form of the name here is Φιλαίνιον, The marginal variant 
Φιλαινίδος probably suggested itself to a late corrector of the papyrus because of 
the notorious hetaera of this name (Amth. Pal. V. 202: cf. Crusius, Untersuch- 
ungen, Ppp. 43, 129). Perhaps, however, there is in this daughter of the athlete 
Gryllus’s friend, a covert reference to the great athlete and runner Philinus named 
above, whose career resembles that of Gryllus. 

2 The reading μολών, participle, adopted by Ahrens and others from inferior 
manuscripts, and from a varia /ectio of the Scholiast, is hardly probable. As the 
lectio facilior it probably arose from a misunderstanding of the proper name 
Μόλων, well attested by Ambr. 4— text and Scholia, — by the first hand of Medic. 
2, and by the Juntine, which is based in part upon a manuscript of the same 
family as Ambr. 4, as good as 4, if not better. This confusion was not a little 
helped by the μολοῖσα | τήρησον ποτὶ τὰν Τιμαγήτοιο παλαίστραν of Jd. II. 96, 97. 


198 John Henry Wright. 


have traces in the Scholiast on Aristophanes and in Suidas.’ In this 
commentary Didymus had said that there were two Molons in an- 
tiquity, respectively actor and thief, and that Aristophanes here (Raz. 
55) means the thief, since he was small of stature. Now in the pas- 
sage cited above from Eustathius we are also told that there were two 
Molons, and that both were celebrated by the comic poet; whereas 
in fact only one Molon is mentioned by the vez, while it is the com- 
mentator that discourses of two Molons. This duality of Molons in 
Greek comedy according to Eustathius, arises from a misrecollection, 
on his part, of the Didymean commentary, since elsewhere he refers 
apparently to only one Molon as mentioned by a comic poet.? All 
these facts with others show, first, that Eustathius read his Aristoph- 
anes, his Theocritus, and his Didymus, and, secondly, that at least in 
two cases —where by a false association of ideas he gives to Aris- 
tophanes what Didymus had said, and where he turns a thief into a 
lover (or hero) — his recollection of his reading was of such a nature 
as to make it quite probable that the Theocritean Molon came into 
his mind and was duly noted as he endeavored to recall and record 
a bit of dimly remembered Didymean lore. 

Retaining, then, the Molon of Theocritus, the question arises 
whether the Μάρων of the Herondas papyrus can be traced to an 
original Μόλων as written by the mimographer. There is no uncer- 
tainty about the reading of the papyrus: MAPUN is unmistak- 
able in both places where the word occurs. If an error was made 
by this or an earlier scribe, it must have come about in one of two 
ways, either through a misreading of the letters of the original text, 
or from some probably unconscious mental confusion, on the part of 
the copyist. The manuscript from which the papyrus was copied, 
though in the main quite legible, was at places obscurely written, 
and abounded in orthographical errors, among which misread letters 
figure largely, all of which may be seen from the corrections made 


1 Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 55: Δίδυμός φησιν ὅτι δύο Μόλωνές εἰσιν, ὁ ὑποκριτὴς 
καὶ ὁ λωποδύτης" καὶ μᾶλλον τὸν λωποδύτην λέγει, ὅς ἐστι μικρὸς τὸ σῶμα. Suid. s. 
Μόλων: Μόλωνες δύο, ὑποκριταὶ καὶ λωποδύται. 

2 Eustath. p. 1852. 11: παρὰ τὸ μολεῖν δὲ ὁ Μούλιος Ἰωνικῇ ἐπενθέσει τοῦ ὃ - καθὰ 
καὶ ὁ τοῦ κωμικοῦ Μόλων kal οἱ μολίονες. ---- Eustathius’s remark that Molons were 
large persons is probably to be traced to some other source, if not one of his own 
etymologies (Μόλωνες of πολυμεγέθεις ἀπὸ τοιούτου Μόλωνος, p. 1834. 32). 


FHerondaea. 199 


by the first hand in his revised copy; this has been pointed out on 
pp. 182 ff. Now the letters OA in the writing of circ. B.c. 100- 
A.D. 100, or even earlier, might well have been dashed off by a scribe 
so as to be taken by a copyist for AP: interesting examples of these 
letters blindly written occur in our papyrus itself at IV. 29 (MHAON), 
and II. 78 (OAPCEWN). 

But we are not reduced to the necessity of explaining the probable 
corruption on palaeographical grounds alone. As we have already 
seen, the scribe of this manuscript did not slavishly copy his original, 
letter by letter, but appears often. to have carried the words in his 
mind, dictating them as it were to himself, and writing sometimes 
not the word he saw, but the word he thought he heard. Now in 
such a process it is quite possible that, in the case of an unusual 
proper name, the cognate sounds of the liquids A and p might have 
become interchanged,’— as in the classical example of Alcibiades’s 
pronunciation of Θέωρος and κόραξ as Θέωλος and κόλαξ ---- αηα that 
while our scribe saw Μόλων he wrote Μάρων. The mistake may 
have been made the easier by an association of ideas with Virgil. 
The writer of the papyrus manuscript, “who may be provisionally 
assigned to the second or third century a.p.” (Kenyon), when Virgil 
had already become a text-book in the schools and was well known 
in the ancient world, might well have associated the supposed Maro 
of the original mime, whose name is there spelled out to a lazy school- 
boy, with the famous Roman.’ It should finally be remarked that the 
Μάρων of the Coan inscriptions, to which reference has been made 
in illustration of the name in Herondas, cannot be taken into consid- 
eration in this connexion. Unlike the Nannacus, Simus, Philinus, 
and Aratus mentioned as found on stones of the third century 
B.C., this word occurs only in a late Christian inscription ;* perhaps 


1 For Alcibiades’s mispronunciation see Aristoph. Vesp. 44, 45; Plut. Adc. τ. 
Cf. *Auopyds ... λέγεται καὶ “Auodyos, Stephan. Byz. 5.0. In one of the 
modern Cretan dialects ἄλλο is 4770. 

2 To a scribe writing in Egypt after B.c. 50, the name of the Alexandrian 
Marion, the Olympic παραδοξονίκης of B.C. 52, who won the prize for the pancra- 
tium and the wrestling match on the same day, and thus became the fifth Hera- 
clean double-victor, would also have its associations. Férster, Die Steger, nos. 
579, 580. 

8 “ Μάρωνος. ér(Gv) Κ΄. Small stele, with aedicula in the centre of which is 
a cross within a circle”: Paton-Hicks, /mscriptions of Cos, no. 339, p. 219. 


200 John Henry Wright. 


the young man on whose gravestone it stands received his name, 
which is not a frequent one among the Greeks, in honor of the 
author of the Aeneid. 

In view, then, of all these considerations, I do not hesitate to pro- 
pose as, at least, a probable, if not a certain, reading at Herond. II. 
24-26: — 

τριθήμέρᾳ Μόλωνα γραμματίζοντος 
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῷ τὸν Μόλωνα ἐποίησεν 


Θ , ε ΄ 
οὗτος Σίμωνα ὃ χρηστός. 


ea tan 
Sige? 


es 


>? 


ἐν 
~ 


4 NS i 


ye χα" 


er sy 


Pie» 


Lees 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


_ 


THIS BOOK Is DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 


Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
506 per volume after the third day overdue, increasing 


to $1.00 per vol after the sixth day. Books not in 
demand m ey spbived if application is made before 


' ape period. 


SEP 1s iyve 


15m-4,’24 


AY δὰ 
\ 


Wy SN 
AX 


